> Hey Andrew.
>
> Your suggestion seems to say 'get rid of weapon modifiers' and then 'use
> them'?
>
> "Don't give someone a bonus for sweet weaponry, increase his skill to
> reflect the improvements to his kit."
>
> So, take away +4 for his b*stard sword (:P) and give him +4 to reflect the
> 'improvements'?
No, I meant more like--Joe the Warrior has 5W in "Armed combat: Sword and Shield". This means if Joe is fighting in a normal situation--his normal weapons, normal health, a good night's sleep and a good meal--he has skill 5W. If circumstances are particularly advantageous, he gets a bonus; if something's wrong, he gets a penalty. So far that's all plain-vanilla HQ.
So, as I see it, if Joe and Jake both have the same rating--5W--it might be because, say, Joe is particularly skilled, practices harder, he's just better with weapons--but Jake has a lot of money, he bought himself an extra-good sword and shield. You don't give bonuses or penalties to either of them. On the character sheet, they're both "Armed combat: 5w"; it just happens that Jake's 5w reflects his extra-fancy equipment, Joe's reflects his skill.
So, a game consequence: If a character finds some money, and the player wants to decide what to do with it, I'd argue he could improve his weapon skills (up to a point, anyway) and pay the half-price "improvement related to game play" rate. The player would say "I spend the money to buy better weapons" as the in-game justification (just as he might "spend" that money to buy up his "wealth" score). Of course, he could also use, as the in-game justification, "I spend the money hiring trainers"--but if his character doesn't have time for that, or is in a nice market with lots of quality smiths, buying weapons might be a better in-game option.
Powered by hypermail